Much of my work centers around the appropriation of things that I co-exist with, be they samples of sounds, clipped images or artifacts of daily life. One often hears arguments about who, if anyone, has ownership of such things and, if so, at what point do such things leave the realm of public domain and enter the realm of private ownership?  

It is not a rare occurrence for an artist, especially those who create with sounds, be they musicians or sonic architects, to face the challenge of a lawsuit brought on by an irate person who believes that he/she has had something taken without permission 
and should either, a.) levy a cease and desist order upon the perpetrator and/or b.) receive some sort of compensation from the perpetrator who has committed copyright infringement. It is no doubt in my mind, that the rise in this type of litigation in the music industry is nothing more than the corporate desire to acquire more wealth and has nothing to do with protecting the rights of the artists they represent.  

I place forth for discussion, some thoughts that challenge the notion of "sole ownership". But before I begin, I do feel it necessary for me to state that I do not condone the theft of entire pieces of original work for the purpose of declaring ownership of and deriving profit from, that work. I do not support anyone who steals entire songs or written passages and claims them as their own and I support efforts that seek to punish those which make such attempts. Rather, I am referring to the issue of sampling, the taking of a relatively small portion of an existing entity and then incorporating it into a wholly original work. Much 
of what follows will center around the sampling of music though I feel the arguments equally apply to other mediums as well.  

                                       1. A Matter Of Precedence 

In the litigation of copyright infringement cases in the music industry, the whole notion put forth is that the original artist has exclusive ownership of the work and no one shall have permission to use it in a performance in any way, without the expressed permission of the artist (or whoever ultimately has ownership of the work - often, the original artists do not hold the rights to the work). On the surface, this appears to sound rational, even though by definition, it invalidates a whole style of music which is known as folk music. True folk music is just that, music of the people, which was written by a person then subsequently handed down to others to be reinterpreted in the lyrical and/or musical content. There is no ownership, period. These are the tunes that often are indicated as being public domain. Fair enough, but what of the rest? What gives one song the ability to be freely reinterpreted while others are locked in a web of law? And these are whole songs we're talking about, not just the little sound bites appropriated by artists to be placed within a larger work that contains other sources of sounds, which much of the copyright infringement argument centers.  

                                         2. Sound As Property 

There exists the notion that the artist who creates the sound, is solely responsible for the appearance of that sound and all compensation surrounding the presentation of that sound resides with the original artist. I wholeheartedly disagree with this notion. Especially regarding the creation of sound and music, no one person can ever be fully responsible for its creation. Let us take for example Mr. X, who has just scored a top ten hit with his new song. Now then, I will not dispute that Mr. X did do the arrangement of the notes in the particular order which eventually ended up being that top ten hit of his. But aren't there other 
factors we need to consider as well? X used instruments to create those sounds and like most musicians, X purchased his instruments from a manufacturer as opposed to making them on his own. As such can we not also say then that X owes a bit of the credit to the makers of his instruments? One could argue that the purchase of the instruments in the first place acts as compensation but that is not the case. The purchase price is for the cost of producing the instrument plus a certain amount of profit for the manufacturer. No funds exchange hands due to the fact that X got a hit using someone else's instrument. There 
may be those of you who think this is not an important point but let me explain it with another example. In scenario A, X records that song, a lovely electronic keyboard piece, using a wonderfully lavish Synclavier. Oh how it sounds so grand! It is no wonder that X is emulated by millions through the sales of his CDs. But in scenario B, X records the song with an inexpensive Casio miniature keyboard (I don't wish to imply that all Casio keyboards are trash but when comparing the sounds of their little models which appear in discount warehouse catalogs to that of a Synclavier, well, they are!). The song hits the market and not a peep is heard from it. But why? It is the exact same tune. Can we not infer then that a significant reason for X getting his hit was due to the sounds of his instruments, for which he had no participation in the design of?  

This argument can be extended in any number of directions by saying that the determinants of the final recorded work also depends on who actually did the recording and what equipment they used, what studio was it recorded in, and on and on and on. My point is that regarding the creation of art with respect to sound, one can seldom claim sole creative responsibility (unless of course, it was performed only live and acapella).  

One final example would be that of the impersonator. An impersonator makes a living by attempting to duplicate the sounds and/or actions of a recognizable person. The impersonator had nothing to do with the uniqueness of the celebrity they impersonate, yet they are free to use that very same uniqueness to make their living.  

                                  3. Denying Profit To The Rightful Owner 

Another argument is that by allowing someone to sample a piece of music and incorporate it into their own work, it somehow adversely affects the original artist's ability to earn from their original work. In other words, if Y samples a bit of X's song, sales 
of X's product will be negatively affected. This, to me, is one of the more ludicrous assertions. I find it hard to believe that if a rap act samples a soul song, people will shift their attentions away from the soul song and focus exclusively on the rap song. If 
anything, I think the opposite may hold true. Fans of the rap act might want to check out why the rap act is sampling this soul song. Who is this soul artist? "Why is the band I like so much sampling this?" These are definite possibilities which may in turn, create an interest in the original soul song and spur sales of it.  

The same argument can hold true for dialogue of films which are sampled. Upon finding out what the source of the dialogue is, one may then go and see the film to try to figure out why it was used as a sample or merely see it out of curiosity.  

                                         Some Final Thoughts 

I think I have made a case which justifies the free use of sampling in music. I also believe it equally applies to other artistic endeavors, most notably and obviously, collages. When someone commits an act to some form which is picked up by the senses of the public at large, they are voluntarily giving up its privacy. They are handing it over to the public for them to make of it what they will. If it is a song, some will listen to it on the radio. Others may buy a copy for themselves. Yet another might say, "That's a really interesting drum line." and sample it and put it in a work of their own design. If it is a magazine, some will read it quickly at the newsstand. Some will buy it, read it then discard it. Yet another, will look for interesting graphics and text and rip them out and rearrange them with other things to create an entirely new message of their own choosing. And by virtue of what I have stated in this article, they should be free to do so.  

I was informed by a friend some time ago that something which I recorded on the Dada, Son And Holy Ghost tape was sampled and used by an independent rap band in the  ashington DC area. I can also honestly say I was somewhat flattered by this. I never got a chance to hear how my work was incorporated into theirs but I must say I am honored that someone would think highly enough of something I created, to find it so aesthetically pleasing, to put it in something which they created.  

As an artist who frequently appropriates pre-existing sounds and images, this topic is very important to me. Whole areas of artistic expression are threatened by what really amounts to runaway greed and profit incentive (The marriage of art and commerce has always been a very unstable relationship.). In an effort to reach a concession of sorts, I would find it acceptable to list my sources of sampling. After all, cannot one be free to quote a written work in their written work so long as the source is duly noted in a bibliography? Indeed, it might even be interesting to do so, in order for others to see if they can spot the samples 
in my work. However, I do not feel that I, or others, should have to pay for it or be denied access to it.